On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 23:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> be aware that what ever version of glibc & gcc you use to build, the end user
> cannot have a version older than that or it'll fail to start
Do you mean in the case of dynamic linking? If so, that's awful. But
strange because I've seen m
On Saturday 01 June 2013 19:27:46 Kip Warner wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:31 -0500, Robert Boehne wrote:
> > I don't quite understand why you think you need the rest linked
> > statically,
>
> Libraries like the following may not be present on the end user's system
> already:
be aware that w
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 07:37 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> You have
> > PKG_CHECK_MODULES([libzzip], [zziplib], [have_zzip=yes], [have_zzip=no])
> Have you seen
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
> ? Maybe try PKG_CHECK_MODULES_STATIC
By the way, outside of that upstream bug report,
On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 17:17 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Aw, foo. I was under the misapprehention that --static would cause
> pkgconfig to reference the .a files. I've clearly been spending
> too much time in cmake-land.
No worries ;)
> I don't suppose you've tried passing absolute paths to the .a
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Kip Warner wrote:
> $ pkg-config --libs zziplib
> -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions -Wl,-z,relro -lzzip -lz
>
> $ pkg-config --static --libs zziplib
> -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions -Wl,-z,relro -lzzip -lz
Aw, foo. I was under the misapprehention
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 07:37 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> You have
> > PKG_CHECK_MODULES([libzzip], [zziplib], [have_zzip=yes], [have_zzip=no])
> Have you seen
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
> ? Maybe try PKG_CHECK_MODULES_STATIC
> or PKG_CONFIG="pkg-config --static"
Hey Dan. I'
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 14:57 +0100, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> What you're thinking of is -Wl,-Bstatic and -Wl,-Bdynamic — for the GNU
> linker at least, but this is not portable.
>
> Seriously, it sounds to me like something else is wrong, you should never
> have the need to statically link stuff
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:31 -0500, Robert Boehne wrote:
> Statically linking libc is a recipe for disaster, so either read and
> understand why, or just take my word for it.
I'm in agreement and standard libraries are something I'm fine with not
statically linking against, although it's not unus
